On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Connor Lane Smith <c...@lubutu.com> wrote: > Hey, > > On 8 August 2010 09:22, Uriel <ur...@berlinblue.org> wrote: >> Both are emacsisms as far as I can tell, and of little use (specialy >> given ^C already aborts). > > ^D isn't an emacsism insofar as using it in bash when not at the end > of the line works the same way. That said, I'm aware bash is a > monster. However:
Just because some other retarded piece of GNU/crap implements it doesn't make it any less an emacsism. > > On 8 August 2010 11:54, Uriel <ur...@berlinblue.org> wrote: >> Indeed, ^D meaning anything other than EOF is an abomination. > > I'm not prepared to limit myself to relics for the sake of it. dmenu > has no files of which to reach the end, so EOF is simply meaningless. > If we restricted ^D to solely EOF then it would be a dead key. On the > other hand, dmenu has a cursor, which 1970 teletypes did not have, and > so requires keybinds for its control. If Bell Labs UNIX had had a > terminal cursor I'm sure they would have provided the keybinds > necessary to use it. I don't believe pragmatism is abominable. This is a totally retarded argument, Plan 9 terminals do have a cursor, and certainly don't implement every retarded stupid keybinding imaginable, specially not ones that conflict with one of the most generally accepted and used keybindings. Also ^D makes perfect sense in dmenu, it means *end of input*, it works when you type cat(1) in any *nix terminal, even totally retarded ones like xterm. To do anything else with ^D is not pragmatism, it is totally retarded GNU/idiocy. uriel > Thanks, > cls > >
